Petitioners Push Back vs. FCC to Force USAC’s Universal Service Reimbursements

confirms that the petition should be granted, the petitioners’ reply said. It was filed Wednesday (docket 24-1027) at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Discounts on IT and broadband services come under Section 254 of the Communications Act (see 2404250028). The FCC calls the mandamus relief that the petitioners seek to force the reimbursements a drastic remedy that should be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances. In cases such as this, involving claims of unreasonable agency delay, mandamus is warranted only when delays are egregious, the agency said. But under “the first mandamus factor,” for a remedy in this case to be adequate, “it must enable the numerous schools in this case to complete their IT projects before the next school year,” said the petitioners’ reply. If the FCC doesn’t render a decision and provide funding before the summer, “many schools will be unable to move forward with vital IT projects and hundreds of students will be deprived next school year of the IT infrastructure necessary for a modern education,” it said. Compensatory relief after years of litigation, as the FCC suggested, doesn’t provide an adequate remedy that would prevent this harm to the public, “which after next year would become irreversible in the absence of immediate mandamus relief,” it said. The agency contends that in light of evidence showing that the petitioners may have had an improper relationship with the schools they were servicing, USAC investigated that possible misconduct, but expects those probes will be finished by the end of May. But that expectation “provides little solace when USAC lacks any authority to address the legal issues in this case and there is no time limit for an FCC decision,” said the petitioners’ reply. The agency’s opposition doesn’t indicate when the FCC will render a decision or whether the schools will receive funds before next school year, it said. Under the second mandamus factor, there’s a clear and indisputable right under Section 254 to the particular relief sought, it said. The Fifth Amendment also establishes a clear and indisputable right to due process, which required a “timely deprivation hearing” either before or after Essential and MetComm were deprived of their “statutory entitlement to reimbursement,” it said. The FCC has a “clear duty” to report its deprivation decision in writing, it said.